UNIT 6 APPROACHES TO CONFLICT

RESOLUTION
Structure
6.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives

6.2 Western Approaches to Conflict Resolution

6.2.1 Dialogue and Facilitation
6.2.2 Approaches to Negotiation and Mediation
6.2.3 Process of Negotiation
6.2.4 Process of Mediation
6.2.5 Arbitration and Adjudication
6.2.6 Essential Skills for Facilitation, Negotiation and Mediation

6.3 Non-Western Approaches to Conflict Resolution

6.3.1 Satyagraha

6.4 Summary
6.5 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings

6.1 INTRODUCTION
Conflict resolution aims at the satisfaction of basic human needs, as it believes that the
non-fulfillment of basic human needs is at the root of violent conflicts. This opens up
space for ‘facilitative’ and non-violent solutions. Conflict is essentially a subjective
phenomenon, and therefore its resolution must involve analysis and reconstruction of
perceptions of beliefs (about) and attitudes towards, the other side, improving communication
and facilitating the development of trust and cooperation between the hostile groups and
individuals.
Gandhi too believed that conflict was the result of structural denial of human needs.
Satisfaction of needs was thus imperative for conflict resolution. For Gandhi, conflict
resolution entails a facilitated problem-solving process that is interactive, analytical and
actively involves all the individuals and identity groups directly concerned.
Between the two extremes of avoiding conflict and responding to it with violence,
societies and cultures all over the world have developed structured and active conflict
resolution approaches to address actual and potential conflicts between individuals, groups
and communities.
Aims and Objectives
After going through this Unit, you will be able to understand:
 The major western and some non-western approaches to conflict resolution;
 The process of applying these approaches; and
 The skills required for applying these approaches.
Approaches to Conflict Resolution 61

6.2 WESTERN APPROACHES TO CONFLICT

RESOLUTION
Most western approaches to conflict resolution require the usage of a go-between or an
intermediary. Heidi Burgess defines intermediaries (or “third parties”) as people, organizations,
or nations who enter a conflict with the aim of trying to help the disputants de-escalate
or resolve it. Intermediaries can play various roles depending on the circumstance and the
kind of help the disputants require from them (active or passive role). Sometimes the
hostile individuals and groups may decide to resolve the conflict of their own initiative- by
discussing the issues between themselves- without involving any intermediary. If the
discussion does not work, one could move to the process of one to one negotiation.
If the stakeholders are not able to work out a solution on their own, then they may take
assistance from an intermediary. The intermediary may initially focus on the process of
conciliation, where she/he has the limited role of focusing on reducing hostilities. Beyond
this, one could move to the process of mediation and seek active assistance from the
intermediary in exploring options and negotiating a settlement but the responsibility to
decide on acceptable solutions is ultimately in the hands of the contending parties. One
could next move to the process of arbitration where the arbitrator would behave like a
judge, decide on the right and wrong and impose a decision. Adjudication is also a form
of arbitration, wherein the adjudicator is the judge. Lastly, disputants have the choice of
going in for litigation.
The facilitator is a person who leads a collaborative process in which individuals and
groups with divergent views meet to reach consensus on a goal or to solve a problem.
The role of a facilitator is less active than that of an arbitrator or mediator as a pure
facilitator is responsible only for the process and not for the content.
Mediation and arbitration may seem to be a similar process but they are different.
Although both arbitration and mediation involve a third party, mediation places the
responsibility of deciding on acceptable solutions in the hands of the disputants, while
arbitration places it on the arbitrator. Negotiation, mediation and facilitation involve more
of individual and community decision-making, which ultimately aim at the possibility of
enhancing relationships between the contending groups and individuals while arbitration,
adjudication and litigation involve more of legally-enforced decision-making. So, in the
latter case, the law takes over and the role of the individual and the community in
decision-making becomes negligible. Thus, in arbitration, adjudication and litigation the
power of the conflicting groups and individuals to manage their own conflict decreases
and they have less control over the solutions in comparison to the processes of
negotiation, facilitation and mediation. (see Figure 1)
 62 Gandian Approach to Peace and Conflict Relationship

APPROACHES TO HANDLING CONFLICT

Figure 1
Source: Simon Fisher et al.: Working with Conflict - Skills and Strategies for Action, New York: Zed
Books & Responding to Conflict, 2000, p.18

6.2.1 Dialogue and Facilitation

Relationships are key to human existence. In relationships we experience differences – of
views, beliefs, attitudes, values etc. Differences can be used as dividers to foster hatred,
ill-will and animosity or they can be used as a connector to discover the underlying human
unity, to create new partnerships, and to build peace. Gandhi also believed in the human
unity structure at the level of social relationships, the structure to which all human beings
belong and which must be preserved. If we choose to view differences as a way to build
peace, the medium through which this can be done is that of dialogue. Simply speaking,
dialogue means to sit and talk with each other especially with those we have differences.
Talking together can however involve debating, discussing with a view to convincing the
other, arguing for our point of view, examining pros and cons. But in dialogue, the
intention is not to advocate but to inquire; not to argue but to explore; not to convince
but to discover.
Creation of a safe space is intrinsic to dialogue- psychologically as well as physically- only
when people feel safe will they be able to express their opinions freely. Secondly, the
purpose of a dialogue is to learn from each other and to discover each other. Besides,
usage of appropriate communication skills is essential in a dialogue. This would involve
putting aside one’s judgments and listening carefully and respectfully to the experiences of
other people. Moreover, dialogue participants must be prepared, for sometimes hidden
things surface—conscious or unconscious beliefs, perceptions, assumptions, fears—these
hidden aspects increase the level of understanding of the participants. Additionally, there
can be several ups and downs in a dialogue. It is important to stay through the hard
Approaches to Conflict Resolution 63

places—anger, frustration, emotional outbursts—and use them as learning opportunities.

But most of all, dialogue should not be approached as a means to change others; rather
dialogue participants must be willing to be changed by the whole experience.
If dialogue is a process or the end, the means through which this process is conducted
is known as facilitation. Facilitation is a process of helping a group complete a task, solve
a problem or come to an agreement to the mutual satisfaction of the people participating
in the dialogue or discussion. A facilitator is responsible for conducting the process
smoothly but she/he is not responsible for the content or the final product. Gandhi
believed in the unity of means and ends, which is necessary for a just and peaceful
society and dialogue and facilitation combine together to do just that.
In most organisations, people get into conflicts with others not because what decision was
made but how the decision was made – who made the decision, by what method and
by what level of majority. Decision-making, thus, lies at the core of building peace in
group, community or organisational settings and facilitators can help a group make a
decision.
In most democratic settings, decisions are made by voting. But voting means different
things to different people, so it is important to clarify and agree well in advance on what
percentage is required to pass a vote. This can range from 50 per cent to 60 per cent
to sometimes 100 per cent or simple majority, two-third majority, by consensus or
unanimously. The facilitator makes sure that the group agrees in advance on the
percentage of vote. She/he also clarifies the term ‘consensus’ as people have different
understandings of it (a decision in which all involved agree to support; even if it may not
be the decision which all prefer is a consensus decision). A decision made by consensus
is useful in any group situation, but in situations of conflict, it plays a crucial role, for
people are often unwilling to be bound by a single vote or a single decision.

6.2.2 Approaches to Negotiation and Mediation

Negotiation and mediation as instruments of peaceful conflict resolution have existed since
early history in Western societies but they were institutionalised as means of peaceful
resolution of inter-state conflicts only in the 20th century.
The Western approaches to negotiation and mediation make a distinction between formal
actors on the state level (governments and international or regional organisations) and
informal actors on the civil society level (international or local non-governmental actors viz,
religious institutions, research institutes, academics, former government officers, think tanks,
or individuals). State level mediators or Track I use traditional diplomacy whereas civil
society mediators or Track II use a variety of approaches.
States mediate with the outcome-oriented approach (traditional diplomacy), which identifies
the representative leaders of the conflicting parties and brings them together to negotiate
or mediate a ceasefire and a peace accord. This approach has been used as a major
instrument in ending a large number of wars but is the focus of criticism, as it tends to
concentrate solely on the top leadership and overlooks the root causes of conflicts. A
variant of the outcome-oriented approach is Power Mediation. Power mediation has all
the criteria of the outcome-oriented approach plus the possibility of use of power,
including force.
At the Track II level of non-official mediation, the third parties are non-directive and they
try to empower the conflicting parties to find their own solutions. These approaches are
 64 Gandian Approach to Peace and Conflict Relationship

long-term and they aim at rebuilding destroyed relationships between the conflicting
parties. One of the most popular approaches at the Track II level is the problem-solving
workshop. The aim of these workshops is to improve the relationship between the
conflicting parties and to get at the root causes of conflicts. This is done by having a
series of such workshops with the same target groups and mediators. The target groups
are representatives of the conflicting parties who have access to the top leadership. The
mediators here are usually a team of academic professionals with conflict resolution
expertise or regional or technical expertise. States are critical of this approach on the
ground that they are too long-term oriented and thus unable to stop wars.
The complementary approach aims to integrate Track I and Track II approaches as both
of them make important contributions to conflict resolution. Here it is necessary to identify
the appropriate actor and approach at a certain time in the conflict. Complementary
approach tries to identify the most efficient mediators at different phases of escalation of
the conflict.

6.2.3 Negotiation
As human beings we negotiate all the time: what to buy or not buy; how much to pay
for the things bought; what to eat or not eat, what to do or not do etc. It is this simple
and widely prevalent skill of negotiation that is used in conflict resolution as a strategy.
Negotiation is a process where individuals with shared and opposed interests, work out
a settlement in order to come to an agreement. One has two choices while negotiating—
go for a win-lose situation (adversarial or distributive approach) wherein one person will
win while the other will lose—or go for mutual problem-solving wherein both the
individuals or groups will try to maximise a joint outcome (integrative approach) which will
result in a win-win situation (gains for both the disputing individuals or groups). The latter
approach is preferable if the disputing individuals or groups have a stake in maintaining
ongoing positive relationships with each other. Gandhi was also of the view that an
approach to conflict that seeks defeat for one party is inconsistent with conflict resolution.
Negotiation normally works in the following way:
1. Disputing individuals and groups share information about the situation they are in (one
at a time without any intervention by the other);
2. They express their feelings (grievances) about the problem at hand or the situation
they are in;
3. Disputants state their positions (what they want) and give reasons that underlie their
positions and feelings;
4. They listen and communicate their understanding of the other individual’s or group’s
positions, feelings and reasons (leading to collective analysis of the conflict);
5. Disputants invent three or more possible solutions or options for resolution;
6. They try to find a common ground that will be acceptable to all and can be
sustained (they work on the details of the solution – what will be done, who will
do it, when will it be done, where will it be done and finally how will it be done);
and
7. Agree and shake hands on the solution that maximise mutual benefits and also agree
to observe and monitor commitments and arrangements (the agreement can be a
formally signed document).
Approaches to Conflict Resolution 65

In the initial phase of negotiation, parties maintain their stated positions (what we say we
want). But an expert negotiator will shift the disputing individuals or groups from positions
to interests (what we really want) and finally to needs (what we must have). The
negotiator will do so by asking the why question to the disputants. In most cases,
disputants have not thought through as to ‘why’ they want to do a particular thing or not
do it at all. The why question thus forces them to think about their interests and needs.
Certain principles should be followed in the process of negotiation. We must separate the
people from the problem. Mostly, relationships get entangled with problems. One should
thus pay attention to maintaining a long–term positive relationship between the disputants
and try to affirm the same symbolically and otherwise. Also, it is advisable that one is
hard on the problem but soft on the people (Principled Negotiation). This means that we
should attack the problem at hand but treat the other side as human, having emotions and
values. Gandhi did exactly that when he refused to see the British as evil; however, he
viewed the British policies and agendas as such.
Communicating effectively during the course of negotiation is a must and that involves
listening actively and respectfully and speaking for oneself and not about others. Focusing
on interests and not positions is necessary as positions are more conflicted than interests.
Additionally, one should generate multiple options for resolving a problem. However, the
process of generating options should be separated from the process of evaluating each
option, which will be the next step. The idea is to look for an option that meets the
interests and needs of the disputants. The final solution must be legitimate (it must be
based on some objective criteria or principles). We should try to look for alternatives as
well – what is the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). And last but
not the least, the commitments made during the process of negotiation should be realistic.

6.2.4 Mediation
Sometimes people in conflict find it difficult to negotiate one-on-one, especially if issues
are complex, emotions are intense, or stakes are high. In such cases, mediation becomes
an option for managing conflicts constructively. Mediation is a process through which a
neutral third person facilitates integrative negotiation between disputing individuals and
groups. Although mediation is facilitated by a third person, it is a voluntary process where
the disputing individuals or groups work out their own solutions, and make informed
decisions to resolve their own disputes; the mediator does not make decisions for them.
Most mediators, however, are professionals who are unknown to the parties. Sometimes,
it is difficult to find any one person who is trusted as impartial and is acceptable to both
the sides. In such cases, a team of two or more co-mediators can work well so long
as each of the sides feels that the team is balanced in its totality. In case of a co-
mediator, it is necessary to check with him/her – who will take the lead role; how the
task will be divided.
Proper groundwork is a must for successful mediation: selection of a mediator/s; ensuring
the participation of disputing individuals and groups; and preparation by the mediator/s.
Mediators need to be aware of their strengths and weaknesses as well as that of their
co-mediator, in case there is one. Additionally, mediators need to remember that the long-
term goal of building relationships and empowering people to address systemic injustices
are sometimes more important than reaching a specific agreement.
Mediation approaches differ from one setting to another as each culture and community
is different. However, mediation generally is a four-stage process, which begins after
 66 Gandian Approach to Peace and Conflict Relationship

advance preparation and getting the parties to the table. The first step is the introduction
stage wherein the mediator provides a safe place for the conflicting individuals and groups
to begin a face-to-face discussion. The mediator introduces himself/herself to the conflicting
individuals and groups. She/he emphasises the goal of the meeting as well – it is a
voluntary process for them to reach a mutual agreement. He/she then describes his/her
role in the process – to help them talk to each other and not to judge or give answers.
The mediator makes sure to describe the process – each side will take turns to speak;
both will agree on the basic issues and will work with these one at a time with their
suggestions for resolution. Gaining commitment to the ground rules like not interrupting,
confidentiality and speaking respectfully is also very important at this stage. The mediator
should ask the conflicting groups and individuals to come up with the ground rules (if the
rules come from them, they will also feel morally responsible to be bound by them) and
not make suggestions initially; in case they are unable to do so, the mediator can then
suggest some of the ground rules and gain commitment from the participants for them.
The second stage is of storytelling, which allows the disputing individuals and groups to
express their concerns, explain the situation as they understand it, and gain a sense of the
other side’s view. It is the duty of the mediator to ensure that the participants speak
directly to each other and not via or through him/her (coaching direct dialogue is a must).
The mediator will get the perspective of each side one at a time and offer his/her
paraphrase identifying each side’s hopes and concerns. The mediator in his/her paraphrase
should also acknowledge the hurt, anger and frustration of the people in conflict. He/she
will then summarise the main issues of the conflict and the common grounds and positive
intentions, if any (identifying the common ground is essential as people in conflict do not
think that they have anything in common between them).
Problem solving is the third stage of the mediation process. The key here is to build a
sense of joint ownership of the problems (they are in this together – they got into the
conflict together and now they have to make an effort to get out of it together) by helping
identify the issues that separate them and generate, evaluate, and negotiate options for
resolution. In this context, Gandhi had also opined that instead of separating the two
sides, a conflict should actually unite them because their incompatibility is common. The
mediator will now pick up one issue at a time and get the conflicting groups and
individuals to work on it (usually start with the easiest to resolve, so that the disputing
individuals and groups get the feeling that it is possible to resolve issues between them).
Here the focus of the mediator should be on trying to move the conflicting individuals and
groups from their demands (positions) to their underlying interests. She/he should then
encourage them to generate options for resolution. The options for resolution will then
have to be evaluated one by one. Once all the options have been evaluated, the disputing
individuals and groups then need to select the best option. Each time there is a ray of
hope–-any constructive move is made or progress takes place—the mediator must
acknowledge and affirm them.
The last stage of mediation is that of agreement where the key is to ensure or seek a
sustainable agreement. The mediator should work out the terms of a fair and sustainable
agreement, including ways to deal with the problems or issues that may arise later during
the course of implementation. In order to do this, she/he needs to address the specifics
of the agreement – what will be done, who will do it, when will it be done, where will
it be done and finally how will it be done. We need to be realistic, clear and simple in
this stage while maintaining a balance between the responsibilities given to the disputants.
The agreement should be just and should contribute to the dignity of the disputants. It
Approaches to Conflict Resolution 67

should also leave an opening to tackle the issues that may arise in the future. Last but
not the least, the mediator must ask the individuals and groups to state their intent to
support the agreement. The agreement can be put in black and white (is mostly the case
in the western setting) and the participants can sign it formally or it can be an oral
agreement (non-western settings) as well. In case no agreement is reached, the mediator
should affirm the level of understanding reached; remind the participants of the confidentiality
agreement and offer to meet again.

6.2.5 Arbitration and Adjudication

In arbitration, the disputants take their dispute to an impartial third party, who provides
them with a decision to end their conflict. It may take varied forms (depending on
whether or not arbitration is freely chosen by the parties; whether or not parties have
agreed to be bound by the arbitrator’s decision etc.) and can be applied to different
kinds of circumstances (public or private arbitration). Arbitration has some of the
advantages of mediation such as privacy and flexibility while on the other there is a
prospect of an authoritative decision. Arbitration hearings can be formal or informal
depending on the nature and seriousness of the dispute.
Adjudication refers to a settlement by a court. In civil cases, one party (petitioner) goes
to court to demand something from another (defendant). The court then makes a decision
on the issues in dispute, unless a negotiated settlement occurs first. Here the framework
for considering cases is adversarial, court procedures are highly formal and lawyers are
an essential part of this process. Moreover, this is an expensive way of resolving disputes.

6.2.6 Essential Skills for Facilitation, Negotiation and Mediation

Certain skills are critical to the processes of negotiation, mediation and facilitation. The
first and foremost important quality that mediators, negotiators and facilitators need to
possess is to communicate effectively. It is said that mediators are only as effective as
their listening skills. That is why good listening is at the top of the list of skills needed
for mastery in learning mediation. Good listening helps in building rapport and trust
between the mediators and the disputants. A negotiator too needs to listen effectively and
check for meaning constantly. A facilitator can show respect and compassion only by
being a good listener.
Paraphrasing is another important skill. Through a good paraphrase the mediator
communicates understanding to each of the disputants. It also helps in bringing forth more
reflective responses from the contenders. Besides, it slows down the conversation
between the individuals and groups and serves as a buffer between their statements. The
ability or quality to summarise well is essential. A mediator uses summary to review the
key points that have been made by the disputants. This helps in communicating the sense
that they understand the entire situation being presented. Summarising can also be used
by the facilitator to summarise the content of a discussion every few minutes as a way
of keeping the discussion focused.
Monitoring body language is also a skill. Paying attention to the verbal and non-verbal
behaviour makes it possible to watch for contradictions and to discuss them with the
contenders. Moreover, by learning to observe and understand the body language of
others, mediators can gather useful information about how the participating individuals and
groups are responding. Every culture has its own body language and mediators, negotiators
and facilitators need to be aware of the same. Additionally, intermediaries need to be
good at problem solving. Mediators and negotiators should possess the quality of
 68 Gandian Approach to Peace and Conflict Relationship

generating a variety of possibilities/options/alternatives, picking the best course of action

and developing an implementation. A facilitator should be able to help the group define
a problem, analyse it and generate options for resolution. They should also know the art
of narrowing down options, for example by clubbing together more than one option or
removing the impractical ones.
Lastly, third party interveners need to be flexible. They should have the capacity to shift
from problem-oriented activities to people-oriented activities to process-oriented activities
and vice-versa, when progress is blocked in one of these areas. This means that if
disputing individuals and groups are stuck on the problem or the conflict, then the third
party should shift the discussion to the people, that is, the relationship aspect. If the
discussion gets stuck on the relationship aspect, then the intervener should shift it to the
process, such as what should be discussed first, what should be taken up later and so
on. Thus, one should be flexible enough to go back and forth between the three aspects
of problem, people and process. While undertaking this course of action, one should be
prepared to deal with emotional outbursts and difficult behaviour. To conclude, intermediaries
must possess a positive outlook and be fair, impartial and objective in their dealings with
the disputants.

6.3 NON-WESTERN APPROACHES TO CONFLICT

RESOLUTION
A variety of non-western approaches to conflict resolution are used in different parts of
Asia and Africa. In the African country of Rwanda, the Gacaca is chaired by elders,
generally wise old men, who lead group discussions that result in an arrangement that is
acceptable to all the participants. In Burundi, the bushingantahe or the Council of
Notables plays an important role in adjudicating local disputes and reconciling individual
persons or families. Parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan follow the Jirga system, which is
an assembly of elders that takes decisions by consensus on matters dealing with individual
and community disputes.
In India, the mediative approach has been the primary means of dispute resolution at the
community level. The Panchayat system in which a respected village elder(s) assists in
resolving community disputes has long been an accepted method of conflict resolution.
The traditional panchayat system comprised of intervention by third parties unconnected
with the conflict, with a view to overcome the antagonism of the disputants. The aim here
was to re-establish communication between them and the conflicting parties were persuaded
to talk to each other; the mediator was only a medium. However, in contrast to the
western approach, the mediator here is a known and respected third person who is
trusted by the disputants to assist in the resolution of their conflict. Sometimes, however,
mediations would actually turn into adjudication – decisions would just be imposed on the
disputants.

6.3.1 Satyagraha
The Gandhian method of conflict resolution is known as “satyagraha,” which basically
means “a relentless search for truth and a determination to reach truth”. Satyagraha, as
conceived by Gandhi, is a dialectical process that is creative, constructive and centrally
concerned with human needs.
To resolve conflict, Gandhi employed a combination of three basic approaches. First of
Approaches to Conflict Resolution 69

all, Satyagraha implied cooperation with the opponent as a person but noncooperation
with the opponent’s role in the context of the social structure (Johan Galtung called this
process as “decoupling”). Gandhi saw conflict as built into social structures and not into
people. Hence, he made a clear distinction between the actor and the deed: “Hate the
sin and not the sinner.” Thus the essence of Gandhi’s approach was to preserve the
people while systematically demolishing the evil structure.
Second, Gandhi was willing to compromise when basic principles had not been challenged.
He was thus ready to cooperate with the opponents, whenever possible throughout the
struggle, in order to build relationships and to create the basis for a sound post-conflict
life. Third, Gandhi sought synthesis or transcendence that was mutually agreeable and
satisfactory to all the parties and superior to any one of the original positions with the aim
of creating new choices and restructuring the opposing elements of a conflict. This would
include correction in the attitudes, reversal of behavioural polarisation patterns and removal
of the goal incompatibility.
The aim of Gandhian Satyagraha is neither to harm the opponent nor to impose on them
a solution against their will; rather, it seeks to help the parties achieve a more secure,
creative and truthful relationship. Besides, Satyagraha is not used against someone; it is
done with someone. The central idea being that moral appeal to the heart and conscience
are much more effective than violence or pain. In Gandhi’s view, conflict is the result of
structural denial of human needs and conflict resolution thus requires a method of struggle
that satisfies three conditions: it must destroy need-denying structures, create need-
satisfying structures and respect the needs of the conflicting parties during the struggle
itself. Satyagraha was Gandhi’s attempt to devise a method of struggle that satisfied all
the three conditions.

6.4 SUMMARY
In this unit, we have primarily looked at the major western and some non-western
approaches to conflict resolution. It can be concluded from the above discussion that both
western and the Gandhian approach to conflict resolution believe that the denial of human
needs causes conflict and damages relationships. Both agree that restoring relationships
through facilitated methods of problem-solving is thus the main aim of conflict resolution.
The conflict resolution process must target a change in the attitude, behaviour and the
structure (context).

6.5 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. What are the essential features of dialogue? What is the role of the facilitator in a
dialogue?
2. Describe the western approaches to negotiation and mediation.
3. What is negotiation? What are the principles of negotiation?
4. Discuss the process or stages of Mediation.
5. Distinguish between arbitration and adjudication.
6. Who is an intermediary? What skills are essential for intermediaries?
 70 Gandian Approach to Peace and Conflict Relationship

7. Briefly discuss some of the non-western approaches to conflict resolution.

8. What is the Gandhian approach to conflict resolution? What are the similarities and
differences between the major western approaches to conflict resolution and the
Gandhian approach to conflict resolution?

SUGGESTED READINGS
Reychler, L, & T. Paffenholz., (ed), Peacebuilding: A Field Guide, Lynne Rienner
Publishers, Boulder & London, 2001.
Tidwell, Alan C., Conflict Resolved: A Critical Assessment of Conflict Resolution, Pinter,
London and New York, 1998.
Kraybill, Ron., et al, Peace Skills: Manual for Community Mediators, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, 2001.
Fisher, Simon., et al, Working with Conflict: Skills & Strategies for Action, Zed Books
& Responding to Conflict, New York, 2000.
Schellenberg, James A., Conflict Resolution: Theory, Research and Practice, State University
of New York Press, New York, 1996.
Jayne Seminare Docherty., The Little Book of Strategic Negotiation: Negotiating During
Turbulent Times, Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2005.
Kelsey, D, & P. Plumb., Great Meetings! How to Facilitate Like a Pro, Handson Park
Press, Portland, Maine, 2001.
Chodosh, H.E, N. J. Bhatt, F. Kassam., Mediation in India: A Toolkit, United States
Educational Foundation in India (USEFI), New Delhi, 2004.
Ury, William, and Roger Fisher w/ Bruce Patton., (ed), Getting to Yes, Penguin Books,
New York, N.Y., 2nd edition, 1991.
Schirch, Lisa., The Little Book of Dialogue for Difficult Subjects, Intercourse: PA, 2007.
Kraybill, Ron, & Evelyn Wright., The Little Book of Cool Tools for Hot Topics: Group
Tools to Facilitate Meetings When Things Are Hot, Intercourse: PA, 2006.
Augsburger, David W., Conflict Mediation Across Cultures: Pathways & Patterns,
Westminister/John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1992.
Burrows, Robert J., The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach, State
University of New York Press, Albany, 1996.